Stephen Harper

[Government Contracts, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, and also David Nicholson who just happened to do the work on the other untendered contract.

I will try again with the Solicitor General.

There are four exceptions for sole sourcing a contract: it must be valued at less than $25,000; there must be an emergency; only one supplier can do the work; or it is not in the public interest to solicit bids.

Can the Solicitor General tell us which of these four exceptions was cited when the contract was awarded to his friend's firm?

[Government Contracts, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has defended his actions in the past by stating he is the political minister for P.E.I. APM Group, a firm run by the P.E.I. Liberal party president Tim Banks, was handed an untendered contract for work done on the Confederation Arts Centre.

The ethics counsellor is going to P.E.I. to investigate the Solicitor General's handling of the Everett Roche affair. Will the ethics counsellor also be investigating this untendered contract to APM?

[National Defence, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that observation was made about our troops. It was not made about the support the government gives them.

On military matters, let me turn to today's Auditor General's report. The Auditor General told us that the government broke every rule in the book to award a sole source flight training contract to Bombardier. Not only was the contract sole sourced, but Bombardier provided less than half the training required under the contract.

How can this kind of waste be justified when the military is so starved for resources?

[National Defence, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, these increases were so inadequate that we had to pull out of Afghanistan before the war was over.

The government's neglect is making us ever more dependent on our allies. Canada requires foreign transport to get troops and equipment to international theatres. We even rely on American transport to transport our troops to domestic trouble spots such as the Manitoba flood or the Quebec ice storm.

How will the government ensure Canadian sovereignty and ensure that we are not completely dependent on our American neighbours for foreign and domestic military matters?

[National Defence, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today the Conference of Defence Associations released a damning report on the deterioration of Canada's military. Among other things, the report states that up to half the army's weapons and vehicles could be grounded within 18 months and, some time after that, Canada's navy will no longer have the capability for an international presence in multilateral operations.

Why, at a time when our allies in the world community contemplate possible action in Iraq, has the government put the very existence of our military at risk?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on this very serious issue facing Canada's farmers, the drought, the lack of adequate funding and the minimal response by the federal government to a sector in deep crisis.

Agriculture and agrifood is one of the leading contributors to Canada's trade surplus and our gross domestic product. These industries contribute over $26 billion in exports. Many of the commodities are returning a positive net income, but farm families are continuing to struggle with factors outside their control such as drought and foreign subsidies.

One would think with all the challenges facing Canadian farmers the Liberal government would be burning the midnight oil to come up with some solutions but this summer, other than giving contracts to their friends, it seems the Liberals spent the summer completely preoccupied with the power struggle over leadership within their party. There has been precious little sign of caring, compassion or concern for what farmers and ranchers have been facing over the past few months.

We in western Canada are all very appreciative that private citizens did show a lot of concern. The Hay West initiative from many parts of eastern Canada was a tremendous act of Canadians caring for other Canadians. It was genuinely appreciated in western Canada. Even if ultimately the amounts of hay are small in terms of the total problem, it really does go to show that farm families are a very special breed of Canadian.

This summer our members were travelling around the Prairies, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, our agriculture critic the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, the member for Crowfoot, and I could speak of many others. They have been overwhelmed, I think is the way to put it, by the emotional stories of worry, anxiety, anger, sadness and despair that they have found on the Prairies.

I must be honest in saying that I did not quite find the same thing everywhere I went. I had a strange summer in that wherever I spoke this summer on the Prairies, it rained, including in the drought-stricken areas. I was actually caught in a torrential downpour.

The government is claiming that with the Kyoto accord it can control the weather. I can assure it that we do not necessarily have to have Kyoto to do that.

The land this summer has been drier than it was in the dust bowl of the 1930s. This has affected farmers in areas that were not affected by drought. For instance, my brother-in-law had a cattle herd in an area not affected by drought, but because of the extreme effect the drought had on feed prices, he ultimately had to reduce his herd just the same, so it has affected all farmers.

Some 75% of Alberta's farmland suffered from drought, no grain, no barley, no hay. Farmers have been forced to sell their future by sending the breeding stock to auction. Thousands face for the first time in 100 years a fall without any harvest at all. Of course, farmers have been fighting to save the farms that have been in the family for over three generations.

How would our party be different if we had the chance to be government and take care of this? In the short time I have, I will go over a number of measures we would take.

First, we would put in place a meaningful plan for disaster relief. It seems that each time a natural disaster strikes, the federal government is completely unprepared to respond. Step one is to ensure there is a disaster component to the agricultural safety net.

In June the federal government announced the $600 million it was making available to farmers through the agriculture policy framework as bridge funding until the start of the safety nets in the APF slated for April 1. Not only did it take the government nearly two months to determine the method of distribution for this money, but it also completely ignored the advice of almost every farm group not to use NISA as the delivery vehicle.

Farmers who need to access the money may not be able to do so because they cannot trigger their accounts. The minister claims that NISA money began to flow to farmers on Friday. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of farm families will not have access to money until later this year, if at all.

The Canadian Alliance would ensure that every farmer would get a fair share. Under our plan of action farmers would receive the payments through a direct cheque within a couple of months of the announcement.

Second, the crop insurance program, while a useful risk management tool for farmers, is not meeting the needs of producers in drought areas. It must be improved to allow for greater flexibility and coverage for producers who are facing total crop failure.

The crop insurance program is facing a $2 billion payout this year. This is going to result in higher premiums, possibly as much as 50% higher. Farmers need this program but cannot afford these kinds of increased premiums.

Finally, the Canadian Alliance would extend the tax deferral program from one year to five years for farmers who are forced to sell their breeding stock because of the drought. As well, the one year tax deferral program should be extended to producers who are forced to sell two years of feeder calf production in a single year.

I will summarize those quickly: provide immediate aid by adding a disaster component to the agricultural safety net, improve crop insurance and extend the tax deferral program. Those are short term measures. We need to take an in the longer run view, though. In the longer term we need new approaches that the government simply has not been willing to pursue. We need to challenge our trading partners, we need to compensate producers fighting trade injury and we need to change harmful government practices. Those are the three C's, if I can call them that: challenge, compensate and change.

Many of the most important issues facing Canadian agriculture are related to international trade, especially trade with our closest partner, the United States. Canada should be leading the fight for free trade in agriculture. For example, we should have already begun the process of challenging aspects of the protectionist U.S. farm bill, such as the imposition of mandatory country of origin labelling. Instead, the federal government seems to take a wait and see approach.

We also need to be more innovative in resolving agricultural trade disputes between Canada and the U.S. While the NAFTA and the WTO lay out some binding dispute resolution processes to deal with trade disagreements, dispute resolution can take years to complete, costing farmers on both sides of the border. The lengthy processes raise the need for rapid procedures that would give an opinion to guide decision makers and industry. The Canadian Alliance has proposed a rapid response process that could resolve trade disputes between our two countries in 90 days.

A well functioning process would not only save the agricultural industry money, but it would foster a greater level of trade unity between Canada and the United States. All of this would improve the income of our struggling farmers. There is a clear and current example of why this is needed. The U.S. is threatening to impose a tariff on Canadian wheat. This is the last thing our farmers need right now. The issue could have been resolved months ago if there was a forum for resolving disputes. It is time for the government to try and act on this front.

In addition to providing leadership on the trade side, the Canadian Alliance believes we must compensate producers who are fighting against the current trade injury being caused by our trading partners. We must push forward with trade negotiations and move to an agricultural environment that is free from government interference. Our government needs to take a strong stand at the ongoing World Trade Organization talks. We need to work together with like-minded countries, like the Cairns Group, to give our farmers freer trade in agriculture. There have been questions regarding Canada's commitment to this group. It would be a mistake for Canada to walk away from the Cairns Group forum.

Our farm families are depending upon our trade negotiators and we cannot afford to have our bargaining position weakened. However, we realize there is no way we will convince the U.S. and the EU to reverse protectionist measures in the short term. Canadian farmers must have protection, direct protection, trade injury protection and responsibility of the federal government, from the damaging foreign policies today.

The third arm of our agriculture policy deals with the need to change existing government policies and legislation that are harmful to agriculture. Many of these changes would cost the federal government nothing to implement, but would go a long way to improving the competitiveness of Canadian agriculture.

Let me give several examples: the ongoing labour dispute with the grain handlers at the Port of Vancouver; modifying the triggers on farmers' NISA accounts; ending the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board; protection from those who want to use the new animal cruelty bill to stop livestock production; lack of guaranteed compensation in the species at risk bill; ending unreasonable fish habitat regulations in inland regions; reducing the added costs of user fees and taxes on farm families; addressing the issue of tuberculosis in the wild elk herd, which is a particular problem in Manitoba and does not bode well for the government's ability to deal with similar crises in the future; tackling the lack of commercial grain handling and transportation system in Canada; and extending the money available to the water assistance programs, as well as the regions it applies to under the PFRA.

It has been indicated to me that my time is nearly up. Let me say that there are lots of things that could be done if we had an active government that was focused on these problems. It is time the government stops sitting on the sidelines wishing the problems facing agriculture away and coming up with fanciful solutions, like passing the Kyoto accord that will somehow cause there to be more rain. Canada's farm families need some real action now.

[Points of Order, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the course of question period a member of the NDP, in making reference to my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, accused my colleague of recently having been involved in queue jumping in the medicare system. I wish to set the record straight on this matter.

As a pedestrian in Vancouver the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast was struck by a car several days before the House of Commons opened. At that time the X-rays apparently were misread. In spite of the member having a serious fracture, he travelled across the country to be here for the opening of the House.

Upon being in considerable pain, his office arranged a legal MRI with a private clinic here in central Canada. None of this, by the way, was in violation of the Canada Health Act or on the recommendation of a doctor or jumping any kind of queue.

On the basis of the MRI, it was noted that the hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast had a fairly serious fracture in his leg upon which a doctor then recommended him for emergency surgery. He received that emergency surgery one week after being struck by a car and being in considerable pain.

This was not queue jumping. This is an outrageous accusation by the NDP. I want to say that it is about time the NDP began to put people's health and pain ahead of its little ideological crusade. I know that members of this party and other parties in the House wish the former leader of the opposition well in his recovery.

[Government Contracts, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said of the defence minister's firing that this “will teach a lesson to all of us”. Apparently not everyone on that side is a very quick learner.

The fact remains that the Solicitor General orchestrated a contract that directly benefited his friend. Now the government is condoning rewarding friends and family with taxpayers' money. Does this not show once again why the Prime Minister and cabinet need to be subject to an independent ethics commissioner?

[Government Contracts, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the minister is just going to keep reading from his script rather than give anybody in here or outside the House a straight answer.

The only thing transparent in the government is the Prime Minister's obvious double standard. The Solicitor General awarded an untendered sole source contract to his friend and two-time official agent. Everett Roche signed the contract and benefited from it.

Of the former defence minister, the Prime Minister stated, “He helped a friend, and in the guidelines you cannot give favourable treatment to a friend or a family member”. The defence minister was fired. When the defence minister was fired, why is the Solicitor General defended?

[Government Contracts, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has done the following: given out a sole source contract contrary to the rules; failed even to respect the sole source rules in extending the contract; given the contract to the firm of his own official agent; given the work to a former bureaucrat not named in the contract; admitted in the House that the work extended beyond the terms of the contract; and established links between the principals of this contract and his own lobbying for a grant application for his brother's college. I should add that he failed to give straight answers to any of these things either inside or outside the House.

Why is the minister still in the cabinet?